When you’re a star, they let you do it

Some guys are indispensable. Talent is unique; and sometimes a person is simply irreplaceable. Some guys (guys) know that they’re the meal ticket, the vessel for the ambitions of a whole team of people, or a whole population, or constituency.

The seemingly indispensable men — Weinstein, Spacey, Halperin, Wieseltier, and now Roy Moore — leveraged their status to access women and girls as sexual playthings, or to try to get away with it. They did it, because they could.

Once we’ve hitched ourselves to a leader, he is the only one that can deliver the goods for us. That dependency invokes rationalization and willful blindness. It’s not loyalty to the person, per se; sometimes we actively detest the abuser. The worse he is, the more we are willing to view him purely instrumentally: As long as he delivers the legislation, the votes, the hits, the jobs, the money, the power … he must be humored and maintained. It’s not really about him, not mostly. It’s about us and what we get from him.

So we aim our ire towards the accuser(s) — or, if we can’t stomach that, towards blaming the messenger (the media), and our opponents: Those who would gain from our leader’s failure. In politics, the binary choice of an election can make for an orgy of pernicious rationalization. It’s a constant existential battle, and the foe must never be allowed to prevail.

I have to add Bill Clinton to the above list, as uncomfortable as that is for many of us. The accusations against him are not new, but their salience perhaps is. There’s no getting around it: Some of those accusations are credible. Maybe we enjoy the “Big Dog’s” charm and intellect; as President we certainly were reliant on him to hold back a flood of Gingrichian policy malice (with mixed results). His accusers were assisted by right wing ideological outfits, who hunted down the claims as a means to a political end. None of this means that every last part of every accusation has no truth; “bad people” sometimes have a point. Surely if such claims were made against a prominent Democrat now, they would sink his candidacy. But what if they came out in, say, September of 2020? The stakes would be higher to stand on principle, wouldn’t they?

(Sidenote: As his serially-betrayed wife, and just as a close family member, Hillary is mostly exempt from criticism for the fallout of Bill’s behavior. That’s just another way an abuser victimizes the people around him: He betrays them and then ruins their reputations, too. No: It’s on him.)

If Alabama is represented by a Democrat for the next three years, that would be an almost unprecedented shocker — bigger than Brown-defeats-Coakley. It might well affect the GOP’s ability to pass its major priorities, which are, first last and always: a.) Tax cuts for the wealthy, and b.) control of the judicial branch. Apparently ax cuts and ending abortion are worth tolerating a little pedophilia for many Alabama Republicans. Even now, after the allegations against Moore, the polls are tied.Tied: 46% prefer a civil rights hero; 46% prefer a child molester. That’s cognitive dissonance for you. But voters are pretty bloody-minded about their choices: Moore is there to do things (mean and stupid things, namely) —not just sit there and be honorable.

So does it matter when we have truly morally-damaged leadership? We surely don’t expect perfection: The examples of Presidents Obama and Carter (say) are rare. On the other hand, Trump is a vicious, raw-racist bully, and kids and adults around the country pick up that vibe. We see Alabama institutional Republicans (county chairs, state reps and so forth) explicitly excusing Moore’s molestation of a 14 year old; will people pick up on that approval? How many other illegal, predatory “Joseph-and-Mary” situations will we see as a result?

If Alabama voters elect Moore, that’s a lose-lose for everyone. We’ll get the consequences of his lawless, delusional, and brutal ideology in the Senate; and the GOP will be forever associated with a child molester. If McConnell and Ryan accommodate Moore in the slightest, we Democrats will make damn sure everyone knows it. I’m not aware of a situation where you can change Election Day because you might lose an election, but apparently Alabama Republicans may try it out of shame.

Who knows — we may see Alabama itself changing as voters engage in some self-reflection. The ideological fever that gives rise to Moore in the first place is what might permit him to remain in public life — to everyone’s detriment and embarrassment. There’s no time like the present to think: How far is too far? Have we just gone off the edge entirely? What dignity is this vote going to cost me? Maybe I haven’t been thinking about this right. Everyone’s looking at you, Alabama. You can step back from the brink.

I have to confess I struggle with the shoe on the other foot test here. If these accusations – and let’s stipulate that they are credible – were levelled against a Dem, there would still be the issue of which voting record I want in the Senate. Let’s use specific names to clarify this. Suppose it was Doug Jones who was credibly accused, and Roy Moore while having a squeaky clean personal life, still espouses an absolutely horrendous ideology and is virtually guaranteed to vote the opposite of my preferences. I might stop giving to and volunteering for Jones, but I’d still be very tempted to vote for him, while simultaneously hoping he resigns quickly so we can have an election do-over.

Those issues didnt matter to voters back then the way they matter to them now. He was still the surviving brother of two martyred icons. The Hersh book wouldn’t come out for another ten years and the rumors of affairs were just that-rumors. This state forgave him but the national electorate never would. He was never able to overcome it to be President.

Someone with the behavior of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy wouldn’t get elected in a modern primary. Just ask Anthony Weiner.

I think Christopher said it well. It seems that voting is not, to many people, an act of passing judgment on the personal character of the candidates. Ideology appears to be a much stronger factor. I don’t see that as “cognitive dissonance.” The reality is you can be a train wreck as a human being and still get elected. I don’t know how you can possibly suggest that this is not still true today.

I don’t think there is that much difference between now and 1992, which remember was mostly the consensual relationship with Gennifer Flowers that was known. Kennedy tried primarying an incumbent which was always going to be tough and I don’t blame his failure on Chappaquiddick. I think we forget that women’s groups largely rallied behind Clinton and it continues to baffle me why your view of him is so skewed in this department.

They rallied around Bob Packwood too. It’s no accident Harvey Weinstein touted his Planned Parenthood donations the second he got caught. I think it’s important to look at all the accusers with the fresh lenses of today’s standards.

I don’t know who you mean when you write “they rallied around Bob Packwood too”. Some Republicans rallied around Mr. Packwood.
Democrats and women’s organizations did not (emphasis mine).

He ultimately resigned, and by the end of his career there was virtual unanimity that he could not stay in the Senate:

The committee had concluded that Packwood was guilty of an array of sexual harassment and official misconduct charges that amounted to a “pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority as a United States senator.” The documents contained many explicit descriptions of Packwood’s alleged actions and they resounded loudly on Capitol Hill throughout the day.

Packwood’s departure provided a solid victory for women’s organizations and senators who had come to regard the case as pivotal in the fight against sexual harassment.

“The Senate has zero tolerance for this kind of conduct and should send a message to every woman in America that the United States Senate recognizes that this conduct is unacceptable and will exercise the ultimate sanction–this is the atomic bomb; we can do no more than to expel a member,” Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), vice chairman of the Ethics Committee, said before Packwood spoke on the Senate floor.

I fear you have a very mistaken impression of American culture during the Bill Clinton era or the Ted Kennedy era before that.

Where does the Gary Hart collapse fit into your schema? That was 1984 and 1988 … squarely between Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Why do you think the Gennifer Flowers episode was headline news in 1992? When you read, for example, a 2013 piece featuring Ms. Flowers, are you still going to claim Ms. Flowers is some kind of victim? She clearly doesn’t view herself that way — why do you insist on imposing that role on her?

America was, if anything, far LESS tolerant of “womanizing” then it is today.

I find today’s attempt to suppress the sexual agency of women a clear turn in the wrong direction, and I’m disappointed that you seem to embrace it.

How do you reconcile the election of Senator Kennedy seven times after the events of 1969 with the sentiments expressed in this post?

I don’t think you understand the word ‘reconcile’.

On the one hand there’s the sentiment of a person in power saying “‘they let you do i’t so Imma go ahead and do it all I want” and they’re just going to go on letting me do it”. This is the Trump doctrine.

On the other hand, with Kennedy, there’s the idea of admitting the failures and asking for, and receiving, a chance at redemption.

With jconway’s contextualization, I think your question answers itself. It’s not pretty. Kennedy got the opportunity to develop into a great Senator *because* we excused/overlooked some pretty stark shortcomings as a person.

I suppose a Moore supporter could say, “well he hasn’t killed anyone …”

If we’re going to put Bill Clinton in this group (which is, to me, woefully incorrect), then — NOT sarcastic here — we must also include:

– JFK
– LBJ
– RFK
– Ted Kennedy
and probably FDR.

There is no question that the first four used their power to seduce women.

This is a stance of expedience, not principle. There IS a principle here — innocent until proven guilty.

The inclusion of Bill Clinton on this list rewrites and ignores the extent and deceit of the right-wing conspiracy against him. Paula Jones was never a credible accuser — not because any sexual activity on her part (I’m not calling her a “slut”) and not because of her emotional state (I’m not calling her a “nut”). She is not a credible witness because of her venality. She has demonstrated over a period of decades and beginning well before she was contacted by Mr. Starr, that there is NOTHING she will not do for money. She attempted to block the publication by Penthouse magazine of nude photos of her. She then, after the dollar amount went up, did a full photo spread for the same magazine. She was paid by Mr. Starr. Ms. Jones has a life-long history of saying whatever she is paid to say. She was never a credible accuser.

We have already discussed Ms. Broaddrick at length here. During the first phase of persecution against Mr. Clinton, she steadfastly and frequently refused to join the attack. She swore an affidavit testifying that Mr. Clinton had never done anything to her.

Even Ken Starr did not believe Kathleen Willey, and did not move forward with her accusations. Prosecutors found so many inconsistencies between about the alleged episode and about other issues that they went no further. In other words, prosecutors desperate to take down Bill Clinton concluded that Ms. Willey was lying.

All three accusers were happy to join Donald Trump in an insulting and shameful attempt to embarrass Hillary Clinton.

What we are doing to Bill Clinton here is a travesty. What we are doing to ourselves, our society, and the presumption of innocence is much much worse.

We are, in effect, saying, that women persecuted in Salem WERE witches. After all, everybody in town believe that to be the case.

I will not join in the shaming of JFK (who made Bill Clinton look like a choirboy), LBJ, or RFK.

In my view, removing the role of consent (which is what underlies much of this) is a giant step backwards for women. The MEN who make the assertions about Bill Clinton are patronizing these women. They patronize them by refusing to apply the standards of credibility to them that they apply to every man. They patronize them by refusing to admit the difference between consensual and non-consensual sex (in the the case of Monica Lewinsky). They patronize them by colluding with Donald Trump — who surely exploited them in an attempt to shame Hillary Clinton and distract attention from the “bus tape” and the long list of VERY credible allegations against Mr. Trump.

This scurrilous savaging of Bill Clinton is a betrayal of the values we claim to hold dear, not just as Democrats but as Americans.

Bill Clinton WAS pursued by a REAL and vast right-wing conspiracy. They threw EVERYTHING they could find at him. NONE of the salacious allegations by ANY of these women was ever confirmed.

So we are now saying, in essence, that we don’t care about any of that. Twenty years after the fact we are saying that he was guilty ANYWAY. That is anti-American tyrannical rubbish. That is quadruple jeopardy. That betrays our own rule of law.

Thank you for again confirming that you don’t care about sexual predators who are on your side. And thank you again for pushing the “nuts and sluts” attacks against Clinton’s accusers. You’ve demonstrated again why the culture of sexual abuse is so pervasive.

If you want to make some high claims about “innocent until proven guilty” please do not mention anything about the accusations against Roy Moore.

If your standard is a criminal conviction, you’re going to have to take back nearly every claim you’ve ever made about a Republican on this site. including Trump.

It seems to me that you are the one unable to differentiate “venal” from “nut” or “slut”. Your refusal to actually consider each accuser on her own merits is more sexist and patronizing than anything I’ve written. I have said absolutely NOTHING about the sexual activity of any of Mr. Clinton’s accusers, nor have I said that any of them are not of sound mind. It sounds as though you are expanding “nut and slut” to include ANY effort to challenge the credibility of the accuser.

Venality DOES happen. I hate to break this to you, but both men and women sometimes lie in order attain money, power, or other things they desire. It does happen.

The presumption of innocence isn’t limited to a courtroom. Its application in everyday life is to consider the credibility of an accuser when any insult or attack is launched.

The WaPo piece regarding Roy Moore is extensively documented. The evidence already presented there is compelling, and more evidence from more sources supports the allegations of the piece. That’s why the attacks on it as “fake news” will prove so counterproductive to those who make them, because the response to such an attack is to look more closely at the allegations and the evidence — that closer look strengthens, rather than weakens, the piece. I predict the piece will win a Pulitzer.

If your standard is “guilty if accused”, then NOBODY will survive. People with power and money attract cranks, exploiters, blackmailers. You are advocating a return to the dark ages.

The result of accepting the standard you propose is the implicit demand that the men we elect be celibate — the only way to guarantee that a sexual act is consensual is to not perform the act. That standard has not worked out well for the religious traditions that have attempted it.

One reason why the culture of sexual abuse is so pervasive that we refuse to embrace and celebrate the sexual appetites of women. We insist that women be either a virgin or a whore. The result is a culture where NOBODY can talk about or act on actual feelings and actual appetites — and NOBODY can defend themselves — neither men nor women, neither accusers or perpetrators.

The result of what you demand is a return to a culture where sexual behavior is again driven underground, performed behind closed doors with the lights out.

Bill Clinton lied to the American people about a consensual affair initiated by the woman in question (Monica Lewinsky). He admitted having consensual sex with Gennifer Flowers one night. Neither Gennifer Flowers nor Monica Lewinksy accused Mr. Clinton of forcing either of them to have non-consensual sex.

I give him a pass because:

1. His wife has given him a pass on his consensual affairs — it’s not my business, nor is it yours, nor is it the public’s business.
2. His accusers have absolutely NO credibility.

The substance of the WaPo allegations against Roy Moore is compelling in comparison to the substance of the allegations against Bill Clinton. None of Roy Moore’s accusers have been paid for their accusation. None of Roy Moore’s accusers came forward on their own. The various meetings that are alleged by the WaPo article were confirmed by the WaPo through other sources (calendars, court records, etc) — in stark contrast to the accusations of Ms. Willey.

Have you actually LOOKED AT the history of Kathleen Willey? Not the Rush Limbaugh version, but the ACTUAL facts of what she actually told Ken Starr, what she did not tell Ken Starr, the attempts by Ken Starr to coerce testimony from her friend, and so on?

I am looking at this in a very nuanced way. I don’t think we can say that all the accusers can be dismissed, or use actions they took under the microscope as an automatic way to undermine their credibility. Moore and his defenders are using many of these arguments, so was Weinstein. This doesn’t mean they aren’t true when it comes to Clinton-it also means we can’t assume they are false either.

So I’m neutral-I want an investigation free of partisanship, maybe like these journalists have been doing at the Times and Post, to re-examine these cases and make a new determination for the history books. Taxpayer dollars found nothing criminal there, but the inappropriate behavior could go beyond consensual sex to something more. I want to know.

I also think that until this happens we should champion the feminism of Barack Obama. Even if the affairs are consensual it means Clinton still behaved as if some women were equals and others were sex objects to pursue and conquer.

I feel you read the memoir of the intern who slept with JFK it really crosses the line into a predation. Reads a lot like some of the stories from Spacey’s younger lovers about stolen innocence and lives destroyed. Her first marriage ended before it could begin. He quickly moved on to the next conquest and she was left to pick up the pieces of her life. So were a lot of Kennedy mistresses and I think it’s fair to examine those cases from a feminist angle.

JFK is absolutely on a Leon Wiessetler level even if he isn’t on a Weinstein level. And many times he was (inviting staffers to see him swim naked, isolating women in rooms, etc.)

I for one am willing to stipulate that JFK crossed a lot of lines. I read a biography of him a few years ago and concluded he literally could not control himself. (See, I CAN be critical of a Dem in this regard, but Kennedy got the opposite treatment of Clinton – the press all looked the other way.)

Did you even read his post? He explicitly said he was not going the nuts and sluts route! Do you see no distinction between the presence and absence of consent? Can you not discern the difference between credible and non-credible accusers? Ken Starr did everyone a disservice when he elided an accusation of non-consent with a consensual affair, which let us not forget he pursued in the hopes that Clinton shared pillow talk with his mistresses about Whitewater – his real mandate to begin with. The constant bashing of both Clintons by supposed Democrats is shameful.

There are no credible allegations of non-consensual sex on the part of JFK, LBJ, RFK, and FDR. There is, instead, a very long list of well-documented extramarital affairs each man had. Being sexually active is DIFFERENT from being a sexual predator (unless you are also one of those extremists who insist that every extramarital sex act is a crime against humanity).

The difference between the list of “JFK, LBJ, RFK and FDR” (and Bill Clinton) and the claims that Jefferson and Popes owned slaves is that Jefferson and Popes DID own slaves.

JFK, LBJ, RFK and FDR are not accused of being sexual predators. Monuments to them are secure.

You claim that Bill Clinton is an abuser of women. I assert, again, that you are repeating a libelous accusation funded by right-wing extremists like Richard Mellon Scaife and Adolph Coors and repeated by right-wing shills like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

…
Although a distraught Willey said on 60 Minutes that she considered giving Clinton “a good slap across the face” after the alleged advance, the evidence suggests she was not the victim of an unwanted advance, as she has claimed publicly and under oath, and that she was actively seeking a sexual relationship with the President. The Nation has learned of six people who say Willey told them she was thrilled by an alleged encounter with the President. Starr is aware of at least five of these people. In fact, a knowledgeable source believes Starr’s investigators found only one person, a close friend of Willey’s, who generally supports Willey’s claim that she was upset by an alleged advance. Starr’s key witness, Linda Tripp–who became friends with Willey when they both worked at the White House–told Starr’s grand jury that Willey plotted for months about how to start an affair with Clinton. Willey’s former friend Harolyn Cardozo told the grand jury that Willey speculated she might become the President’s mistress. Another person who knew Willey at the White House, Marlene MacDonald, a former press-office employee, told Starr’s investigators that Willey was attracted to the President and that she had mentioned a welcomed encounter long after the incident allegedly occurred. Given Willey’s statements to her, MacDonald said she found Willey’s 60 Minutes claims unbelievable.
…
Furthermore, Willey also appears to have made a number of misleading, evasive or possibly false statements under oath in her January 11, 1998, deposition in the Jones case. A review of papers filed in that case indicates that Willey was not forthcoming in some dealings with two federal judges, repeatedly saying in court documents that she had no relevant information when in fact she had secretly cooperated, through her attorney, with Jones’s lawyers before any aspect of her story had become public. If Starr’s investigators had carefully reviewed documents they had relating to extensive legal actions involving Willey’s efforts to avoid paying a $274,000 debt, they could have seen red flags. The evidence suggests she made a number of misleading and evasive statements under oath during those proceedings.
…
But Starr also had evidence indicating that Willey–like Monica Lewinsky–was trying to entice the President into an affair, and that if anything happened, she welcomed it.
..
One source knowledgeable about Starr’s investigation says Republicans discovered that Starr’s own evidence includes “many witnesses” who found Willey’s 60 Minutes claims of an unwelcome advance “highly dubious given her previous statements to them.” Starr could never have used Willey in an impeachment referral, the source says, because his files paint “a picture that raises enormous questions about Kathleen Willey’s credibility.” But Starr asked the House to keep the files secret, so the public was never told this. Instead, Starr, aided by the press, helped maintain the impression that–after the Lewinsky referral–Willey might be the next shoe to drop.
…

My bottom line is, again, that prosecutors who were well-motivated and well-paid to find ANYTHING they could use against Bill Clinton were aware of all of these accusers.

Democrats and Republicans alike made a laughingstock of John Kerry when he said he was for the Iraq invasion before he was against it. Ms. Broaddrick takes that flip-floppery to an extreme, claiming she was not raped by Mr. Clinton before claiming that she was. Her story may well be tragic. She is, nevertheless, not a credible accuser.

The attacks on Bill Clinton were an outrageous and outrageously expensive abuse of federal power. There was NEVER any substance to them. They were extensively litigated, extensively investigated, and relentlessly discussed by a media that was just as eager to fill the airwaves with salacious sex then as they are now.

There is nothing new here. This is not a result of “generational differences”, it is nothing but a retread of tired and discredited partisan attacks that are as empty of substance today as they were twenty years ago when they were first aired.

The same people who hated Bill Clinton in 1996 hate him today — with no more evidence against him today than they had then.

I don’t hate Bill Clinton. I just wish he had more respect for working class Americans and women in general. I’m disappointed in him, embarrassed that he was a president of the USA. I’m much more disappointed and embarrassed by Trump, but again, a distinction without a difference.

I just want to say I appreciate Somerville Tom’s willingness and stamina to correct the record regarding Clinton’s behavior, the accusations levelled against him, and the context in which they were made. Six 6s for all of his comments on this thread and shame on those supposedly on the left who are carrying water for the vast rightwing conspiracy. For those who want to learn more about this absolutely shameful, casual-with-the-truth campaign, I highly recommend this book.

Shame for those on the left who think a morally flawed center right president is some kind of liberal hero to put on a pedestal to excuse all his indiscretions. I don’t see a fundamental difference between Clinton and Packwood or even Clarence Thomas. Many of his advances were just as crude and unwelcome. Sleeping with a supervisor, especially an older one, is a power imbalance plain and simple.

There have always been older powerful men that women in offices I’ve worked at and colleges I’ve attended are told to stay away from. I want that culture to stop. That means making a culture where women are treated as equals and not as potential conquests.

Since pursuing consensual affairs with subordinates will always put a supervisor in a position of power where consenst can’t be given. This is literally what managers teach to avoid hostile work environments and excusing one manager because he passed marginally more progressive policies than Reagan-Bush is something we should finally move on from doing.

Monica Lewinsky made advances to Bill Clinton, not vice-versa. You are reacting to lies and headlines.

There have always been women who are attracted to wealth and power, just as there have always been men attracted to youth and beauty. Treating women as equals includes allowing those women to exercise sexual agency just as their male colleagues have always been allowed and encouraged to do.

I certainly hope that any of those workshops about avoiding hostile work environments include a definition of what constitutes a violation. There is a crucially important keyword that you seem to be missing: UNWANTED sexual advances.

Women who are attracted to older and more powerful men should not be demeaned by calling them “victims”. Let pose a question. Suppose a younger male subordinate finds his older female manager attractive, and tells her so. Are you really going to assert that the older woman is exploiting the younger man?

Women have sexual desires. Women sometimes act on those sexual desires, That is called “sexual agency”. It is a good thing, and is something women should be encouraged to do — if we truly seek a culture where “women are treated as equals”.

Women should, of course, not be treated as conquests. Neither should they treated as fragile blossoms that must be “protected” by big strong men.

You keep coming back to the truly reprehensible notion that “it was Monica’s fault.” It is a degenerate concept that the head of an organization, twenty or thirty or forty years older than a subordinate, can be led astray by a subordinate person barely past 20 years of age. It is especially disgusting in the case of Clinton, who sought and performed his acts in the office that was the source of his power. I don’t need to hear you say Lewinsky initiated the contact. I have had a modicum of power in my life and I would never consider allowing a subordinate person to approach me sexually. It is degenerate. You keep reverting to the notion that he did not harass her. That has never been the issue. He DID take advantage of his power in order to get his sexual jollies.

The issue is abuse of power, the most senior person (in this case the most powerful person on earth) fucking the most junior person in the system, an intern. There is a reason, actually many, why the real world knows this is forbidden. You need to get a grip on this simple fact.

I don’t believe the law recognizes (and I’m not sure it should) an automatic absence of consent when the relationship is between supervisor and employee the way it does between an adult and a minor. Your age is showing. You were ten when Clinton was impeached and I’m sorry, but when it comes to the Clinton nonsense, you had to be there (and old enough to be able to grasp the full story). I don’t think anyone is calling Clinton specifically a liberal hero, just someone whose weaknesses were unfairly exploited by those with a political and ideological agenda. For many impeachment was a matter of finally finding an excuse, yet they won’t lift a finger against Trump for much worse.

Respectively your age and male privilege is showing. You haven’t grown up in a world where female colleagues, classmates, and relatives confide in you about these issues. I can count on both hands close friends and relatives who’ve been date raped, groped, or sexually assaulted. This is a culture that has to stop.

Whether it was consensual or not, these acts demeaned and defamed the women who participated in them. Your candidate might be President now had her husband acted his age and not chased after young vulnerable subordinates. You don’t know female interns who’ve been assaulted by male figures of authority-I do. And Bill getting away with his behavior led to that. We can separate his misconduct and behavior from the VRWC which it enabled and sustained. I’m with modern feminists on this that Steinem and her allies set women back.

James, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper into a very deep hole. So now you’re claiming that Monica Lewinsky “demeaned and defamed” herself because she sought after and got a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton (a relationship where the sex act in question was fellatio, by the way — a boundary chosen by a great many married couples then and now).

Who is calling who a “slut” now?

The plain FACT is that Bill Clinton did NOT “chase after” Monica Lewinsky or any other intern. He didn’t have to — Ms. Lewinsky WANTED to have sex with him. Why is it so difficult for you to admit this? It is ALL OVER the factual record.

I DO know women who have been assaulted by male figures of authority. Every civilized man or woman is appalled by that. Yes, that must stop.

We do NOT stop that by flatly excluding consent from what happens between adult men and women. Women MUST BE able to give or withhold their consent. That is the very essence of power, and you do not empower women by attempting to strip them of that right.

I want to just say, for the record, that I do not believe that Monica Lewinsky was “demeaned” or “defamed” by her relationship with Bill Clinton.

I do believe that she was bullied and nearly destroyed by Ken Starr and the right-wing smear machine. I believe that because:
1. That’s what SHE says, and
2. It is supported by ALL the factual evidence

I’ve read and re-read your comment, and I see no way to avoid concluding that you are yourself “slut-shaming” Monica Lewinski and, for that matter, Gennifer Flowers.

You are a historian. You teach history. SURELY you know the importance of checking sources, confirming sources, and confirming the credibility of sources. You can be “with modern feminists” all you want, but I hope you recognize that the Atlantic article you cited is pure drivel. Ms. Flanagan makes no mention of the awkward fact that the story told by Ms. Jones changed to suit the convenience of whatever prosecutor was listening. The story told by Ms. Willen is in start contrast with actual fact, and both Ken Starr and the House Impeachment committee knew it. Ms. Willen was ignored because her story was shown to be a lie.

Bill Clinton did NOT live his career in a time when first-hand raw sources were hard to come by. You do yourself and history a disservice by your apparent willingness to accept without criticism or concern drivel like the Atlantic piece by Ms. Flanagan.

Go to the sources. Use your training, do your research. Bill Clinton was no saint, and nobody makes him out as one. He was also not a sexual predator.

Oh, and one more time — Monica Lewinsky was not “demeaned” nor “defamed” by Bill Clinton. She was victimized by Ken Starr, and has been demeaned and defamed by countless right-wing talking heads and politicians since then. You want an example of “demeaning” and “defaming” Monica Lewinsky? Try to get through this 2011 transcript of a Rush Limbaugh piece.

Bill Clinton was completely untrustworthy when it came to women & too many dems don’t want to face that, But, the writer of the article you link is about the furthest thing there is from a “modern feminist”. She’s actually more like an anti-feminist troll and that’s a cheap shot at feminists you took that you seem to have borrowed from her.

The truth hurts. Submitted for your consideration below is a mmoney quote from Molly Roberts in the Washington Post:

…Democrats don’t deserve credit today for refusing to be hypocrites. They already are. They stood by Clinton in the ’90s because they thought it was in their political interest, and they batted back attempts during the 2016 election to bring up what it would mean to have an accused rapist as first gentleman for the same reason. That impulse may have been rooted in a desire not to see Hillary Clinton punished for her husband’s wrongs. Yet instead of interrogating that reasoning, liberals did their best to ignore the problem.

Democrats are years ahead of Republicans on issues of sexual abuse from a policy point of view. But from a political one, so far they’ve gotten off easy. Though right now it’s Republicans who are under fire for putting an alleged pedophile up for election and an alleged assaulter in the White House, history tells us there’s no reason to think the next man who gets caught won’t have a “D” next to his name. Maybe it’ll be a rising star rather than a controversy-courting extremist who thinks there’s sharia law in Illinois. Liberals will then have a chance to really prove they’re not still stuck in the ’90s. For now, they’re ready to reckon with Bill Clinton. They’re just not ready to reckon with themselves.

There were exceptions to this; and in the interests of historical accuracy, let me remind readers the the original name of MoveOn.org was Censure and Move On. Simply put, some of Clinton’s most competent defenders were aware of the moral issues involved. As Al Gore put it during his 2000 race:

I understand the disappointment and anger that you feel toward President Clinton, and I felt it myself,

That still feeds the false equivalence narrative. I for one didn’t even want to censure because that would still be too much of an acknowledgement of how we got to that point in the first place. If I had my way the world never would have heard of Monica Lewinsky and the Jones suit never would have proceeded while he was in office. This diary is more where I am.